Wednesday, December 2, 2015

A new YouGov poll conducted over the last 48 hours suggests support across Britain for air strikes on Syria has dropped sharply in the last week, albeit with a plurality remaining in favour -

Would you approve or disapprove of the RAF taking part in air strike operations against Islamic State/ISIS in Syria? (Respondents across Britain) :

Approve 48% (-11)Disapprove 31% (+11)

There has been a lazy assumption among the right-wing commentariat in Scotland that public opinion north of the border is not especially divergent on this topic, and that the SNP are therefore essentially going against the grain of their own constituents' wishes by voting against air strikes. With the usual caveats about the statistical unreliability of subsamples, this poll suggests that may not be the case, and that Scotland is basically evenly split -

Would you approve or disapprove of the RAF taking part in air strike operations against Islamic State/ISIS in Syria? (Respondents in Scotland) :Approve 44% (-7)Disapprove 41% (+12)
Very unusually, YouGov have also asked a voting intention question. I can't remember exactly how many times they've done that since the polling disaster in May, but the number can certainly be counted on the fingers of one hand. The SNP lead in the Scottish subsample is unusually "low" : SNP 41%, Labour 24%, Conservatives 20%, UKIP 8%, Liberal Democrats 4%, Greens 2%. Although on the face of it that's bad news, it leaves open the possibility that there are too few SNP voters in the subsample as a result of normal sampling variation, in which case it's perfectly conceivable that Scottish opposition to air strikes is being underestimated by the above figures. The fact that a wildly implausible combined total of 28% of the subsample are Tory or UKIP voters would tend to support that theory.

Labour right-wingers have been given something of a headache in advance of tomorrow night's parliamentary vote, because until now they've been able to draw a distinction between anti-war party members, and Labour voters who are supposedly in favour of air strikes. YouGov are suggesting that people who voted Labour across Britain in May are in fact opposed to military action by 42% to 35%.

The paradox of this poll is that it shows opinion moving in the direction of Jeremy Corbyn's stance on Syria, but also suggests public confidence in Corbyn himself is collapsing. In the space of just a fortnight, his net personal rating has slumped from -22 to -41. Intriguingly, he seems to be doing just as badly in Scotland, where he stands at -38, although that figure should be treated with caution given the over-representation of Tory and UKIP supporters in the sample. Doubtless Corbyn's critics within Labour will leap on these figures, but the reality is that this is their own handiwork - if you systematically brief against your leader, it harms both him and the party's standing. Labour's deficit in this poll has increased from six points to eleven.

I'm coming even more firmly to the conclusion that a Labour win in the Oldham West and Royton by-election on Thursday would be in the SNP's strategic interests. Although it's still unlikely that a UKIP gain would in itself be sufficient to topple Corbyn, that no longer looks totally inconceivable. It would be best for us if Corbyn's position is stabilised by a narrow electoral success, thus allowing the chaos within Labour to continue for the next five months. The last thing we need is for the run-up to the Scottish Parliament election to be dominated by a second Labour leadership contest. OK, that could exacerbate the divisions even further, but it might just prove a unifying experience for them if they happen to stumble across a credible candidate from the soft left.

* * *

It looks like internal trouble is brewing for the Liberal Democrats as well. Of the comments left so far by grassroots members and activists on Liberal Democrat Voice, only 13 are in favour of Tim Farron's decision to support the Tories and air strikes, and 23 are opposed. It may be even worse than it appears, because some of the supportive comments are in the mould of "the leader is right because it's hard to be the leader and make hard decisions and we must support the leader because he is our leader and he has made a hard decision".

71 comments:

Hameron was desperate enough to push for this off the back off the Paris atrocity, so yeah, it was always going to have an effect. (albeit a diminishing one with every inept dodgy dossier from the nasty party and appearance by such 'trusted' figures as Clegg backing this.) That will come back to haunt Cameron, the Blairites and the nasty party though should there be a major attack in the UK after the bombing starts. Since, so many who were proved 100% correct before on the middle east are warning of the quagmire and dire consequences of bombing. Particularly with almost zero thought to exit strategy, transition or yet another mass movement of migrants as Syria and the region spirals into the kind of ferocious bloodshed that affects civilians for more than any of the increasingly numerous militias and factions like ISIS or Assad's troops.

The multiple allegiances and factions, militias, Sunnis, Shiites, paramilitaries and proxies from everyone from the Saudis to Turkey and beyond are all in there now tearing up the country and spreading the carnage further and further outside of Syria and Iraq's borders.

It is precisely the kind of breeding ground for extremists, chaos and hatred that all but the most clueless of the Blairites and NeoCons knew would be the end result of the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles.

You break it, you own it still applies and this will be going on for year after year after year with no end in sight but plenty of horror and bloodshed to show for it.

Even by their own dire standards Hameron and Corbyn both managed to make startlingly weak speeches in the commons. Not that most of the MPs in the stupid party or both Labour parties did any better to be fair.

They'd better hope much of the public wasn't watching the Syria 'debate' as they seem hellbent on pushing their own core support to new lows.

Speaking of new lows, I thought this was a masterful summation of Farron and Clegg's ostrich faction's bizarre and completely incoherent 11th hour U-turn on bombing Syria.

beaubodor ‏@beaubodor · 19 hrs

Of course, the Lib Dems' decision to back the bombing of Syria was always on the cards.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVLa7zWWUAA7WTm.jpg:large

And indeed this also gets to the nub of just how shambolic and farcical this current bombing stupidity is.

Incidently, Lib Dem Voice are infamous for inept half-arsed spin, overbearing censorship and squashing dissent against the leader. So I would be amazed if the posts you speak of weren't pre-moderated to within an inch of their lives to put a gloss on the actual response from the grassroots.

It was astonishing to see just how far the lib dems have fallen.

Not to put too fine a point on it, Clegg basically cut off Farron's balls and handed them to him on a plate on live TV.

So sooner or later one of them will have to go you wold think.

However, with Farron looking as weak as Corbyn it may well be that Clegg's ostrich faction are considering that the imaginary 'lib dem fightback' could somehow be turned into an imaginary 'Clegg fightback'. (Yes, they REALLY ARE that deluded and out of touch.) Imagine the hilarity! :D

I realise most people won't give a shit about the lib dems (and with good reason after all) but in all honesty what happened between Clegg and Farron is way, WAY beyond even the odious Blairites sucking up to Hameron and trying to topple Corbyn in the most cack-handed and obvious way imaginable.

Clegg really is a nasty piece of work, and though Farron being a weak unprincipled jellyfish might have allowed him to do what he did you, just have to take a moment to imagine the kind of shitstorm this would have caused were it in a party that wasn't a complete irrelevance.

Just to remind people of how it was Clegg bounced the hapless Farron and the lib dems into war..

Farron had set out five tests and repeatedly stated they had not been metand he could not support bombing Syria unless they were.

But in the days before the vote Nick Clegg was briefing furiously to the press (in the background though) and anyone who would listen (notably Sky news several times) that the lib dem MPs would all vote for bombing and support Hameron.

It culminated last night with Clegg going on Sky News and, bold as brass, just announcing on live that TV the lib dems would vote with Cameron and support the bombing with zero explanation of how this could possibly fit in with Farron's stated policy on the five tests or indeed much to say at all other than the usual feeble self-justifications and untrustworthy stuff everyone expects from Clegg.

And, make no mistake, Clegg did that as a completely unconcealed power play which succeeded in bouncing a party (whose membership had just voted convincing against the bombing) and a leader (who could not possibly claim his five tests had been met) into war.

Pimlicat (@pimlicat)

I'm hearing Nick Clegg spoke without consent of colleagues incl @timfarron to make that statement. Will LD MPs vote for or against?

The most hilariously unsurprising (but still incredible) thing about this virtual coup by the toxic calamity Clegg would be this.

It was reported on the BBC that Nick Clegg has had dinner twice with David Cameron in the run up to this vote.

As I said, incredible yet somehow still not surprising in the least. ;-)

Looks like Norman Lamb still wants the leadership at some point and has decided to ignore Clegg, sorry Farron, ;-) and vote against Hameron.

I'm sure the almost 70% of lib dem members who voted against bombing Syria and indeed Clegg's blatantly obvious moves to completely undermine the feeble Farron had no part in it.

But, say, should there come a time when there's a fortuitous 'opening' for a new leader, well, Norman will no doubt reluctantly have to put his hat in the ring having 'proved' his bona fides to an increasingly disgruntled and shrinking lid dem membership.

So unless Farron finally grows a pair and takes on calamity Clegg and Lamb head on then it looks increasingly like he will suffer the same fate as poor old Ming Campbell soon enough.

Whatever happened too the spirit off the International Brigades in Scotland. Men and women who gave their lives to fight fascism. Nats are definately moving rightwards. Sturgeon and her devoted followers are a disgrace to humanity.

I disagree. They have moved leftwards over the last few decades. But this isn't the left of Stalin or Mao (screw around with us and we wont stop until our flag flutters over your parliament building). Nor is it the left of Clem Attlee (let's buy some nukes to keep us safe!). No - it's some kind of horrible mutation. Their leftism is of the North London chattering class variety, transposed 500 miles north. Pacifism, welfarism, and a complete boneheaded opposition to anyone trying to do anything useful - that's the modern left.

Heavy Con up-weighting and 'other' (inc SNP) down-weighting in the poll; can partly explain the high Con in headline figures. Very big con lead for an online poll.

I wonder if this is not down to methodology changes? What I've noticed for UK polls since the GE is Con and Lab often very close on the full base, but then turnout filters giving Con almost all of their lead. Often the filter has been tweaked based on failures to predict in the GE.

I think it's partly due to this harsher filtering and the fact that Lab voters are much less likely to say they'll vote due to current Lab turmoil. Gives a boost to Con. This boost seems to filter into Scottish numbers too - which are not properly weighted to Scotland - so Con look a little too high, Labour about right, but SNP lower than full Scottish polls suggest.

Further evidence for this is that the Tories are not doing well on the economy etc in people's eyes. Also crap on public services. Hence their lead mainly coming from a lot of people saying they're not sure they'll vote as Labour is not offering them a credible alternative. Core Con are then boosted from a fairly small figure to quite an impressive one for an FPTP system.

We should take care with UK polls anyway as the divergence between Scotland and England means pollster corrections for what's going on down south don't apply in Scotland. Even Wells on UKPR has been saying that 'UK' polls might no longer have any relevance; they could get away with excluding NI, but with Scotland off down its own political path, really you need Scottish polls and E&W polls now.

Anyway, Yougov UK subsets had SNP on average 43% for April through to the May GE. Were the worst for predicting the outcome. This I understood to be because Yougov's 'Scottish' panel is too English born / Lab / Con heavy. Hence in their Scottish polls they introduced the CoB filter to correct; something not done in UK poll Scottish subsamples. Any new pro-con filtering / lab apathy effect will be affecting that.

The England pattern is certainly something to behold. Tories look to be riding high, yet, as noted, this is almost entirely down to Lab apathy. I don't recall ever seeing such a contrast between full base and turnout filtered numbers. If Labour did unite around a popular, competent leader, the Tories would be in real trouble.

Yes, it's Corbyn's extreme misfortune to take over at exactly the moment that polling methodologies have changed radically - it makes it look like he's dragging Labour down on the voting intention numbers, when in fact nothing much has changed.

I'm of the opinion that Daesh have to be defeated by military means, they don't give anyone any other choice. They are not going to settle down and become a normal country, they are not going to negotiate peace and they are not going to just go away if we ignore them, they are always going to be attempting to provoke the rest of the planet into a war with them, attempting territorial expansion and conducting terrorist attacks, they see it as their divine duty. Sure, the catastrophic western regime change policies and invasion of Iraq have created and empowered them but now they exist as a territorial entity they have to be physically destroyed. Because of their nature military defeat undermines their whole claim to have divine sanction, loss of all territory takes away their claim to be a "caliphate".

As such, you'd think Cameron would be easily able to win my support for his UK bombing in Syria, but he hasn't. Enough people are bombing them already, Cameron has ignored the Kurds and focused on a fantasy of FSA "moderates". The YPG/PKK, Assad and Hezbullah and Iranians are the only significant anti-Daesh boots on the ground who can take over territory from Daesh and Cameron's plan has no coordination with them. The UK shouldn't go into Syria without a comprehensive peace plan agreed with Iran and Russia meanwhile Daesh supporting Turkey should be kicked out of Nato and the PKK delisted as a terrorist organisation.

I thus hope Cameron loses this vote and is forced to come up with a better plan, that I may support in the future.

Since I just had my comment removed for voicing anger at our resident troll who AGAIN is hijacking the comment thread with his narrow-minded garbage without having his comments removed, I'm going to do the only thing I appear to be able to do and just stop reading the SGP blog.

There's only a couple of major trolls here but even with just two of them, the impact on the fluidity of discussion is more significant than minor inconvenience of having to log in before I can comment. I fully expect that when a couple more regular trolls set up camp on your blog, and push the comments thread down from unreadable to complete gibberish, you'll see many more people leaving, and not contributing to the debate

Actually more disappointed in James' completely arbitrary position on the trolls than I am by the trolls, frankly. I'm sure I'm not the first to give up on SGP because of this, and I won't be the last. When those much-vaunted monthly figures start to fall, James, feel free to come down from your "It's my blog" position and start to consider your true readership.

You did not have your comment removed for "voicing anger". You had your comment removed for ignoring my repeated and polite requests that people should cut down on the swearing. There's nothing "arbitrary" about that.

In fact you basically treated my request with contempt. What did you expect me to do?

The arbitrary comment was related to your position on the trolls, hence why it was included in my last paragraph (about your position on these trolls), not the first. It only underlines, again, the arbitrary and almost backwards nature of your commenting policy - repeated references to Nazis and vicious commentary from our resident troll are apparently okay, but swearing is a big no no and warrants a comment deletion.

Call me simple, but I'd rather have people swearing in the comment thread that calling me a Nazi. Especially people who call anyone who supports the SNP a Nazi so frequently that it completely ruins any notion of the fluid, open debate that you suggest you want to retain.

So just to be clear, swearing is bad, Nazis are good? To paraphrase, "I suggest you just ignore it" but you cannot ignore swearing? I cannot fathom your logic.

Huff and puff all you like, Martin, but the bottom line is that I set out my moderation policy (which hasn't changed since 2010) very clearly, and you very deliberately ignored it. You were probably hoping to put me in a position where I felt I either had to delete both your comment and GWC's, or neither. Sorry, but I'm not so easily bullied.

The moderation policy has been made abundantly clear, and that's the one that applies.

Who's talking about bullying? I'm not bullying you, I'm trying to draw your attention to the facts. You are, by your actions, preferring the actions of someone endlessly comparing people to Nazis to someone who decides to swear in their comment.

The moderation policy is self-evidently a complete mockery of normal policy on comments in blogs, because you are allowing the most extreme type of contribution to go unpunished, whilst deleting comments from people who swore.

I have to say I am rapidly losing respect for you, James. You seem completely unwilling to drop the "it's my ball, it's my rules" mentality when anyone can see that what you really want to be doing is addressing the disruption at the source. Your readership here are more than willing to help address all your immediate concerns about the changes required to put a stop to GWC and his persistent abuse, but you seem more concerned about the fact you'd have to come down from your high horse in order for that to happen.

I am. I've explained what the problem is multiple times - if you're determined not to listen, that's your own affair. The moderation policy is very clear, it's fair to everyone regardless of political views, and it's not going to change.

James, that's a sham of an argument and you know it. Studiously avoiding my point does not make it irrelevant, and whatever way you want to dress it up, this is not a discussion about forcing your hand about how you run your blog or your perception of my inability to read what you've said.

The bottom line is that you are happy to allow someone to continually associate your readership with Nazis, whilst simultaneously censoring people for reacting to it with swear words? You are behaving like a petulant school teacher, with a soft spot for the class clown.

Very surprised and very, very disappointed by this needlessly divisive position you insist on taking - what a mental argument to make! I won't be back here, and like I said before, I certainly won't be the last to leave.

If you're happy to lose regular readers to indulge your fantastical aspirations for this blog, and ignore all advice to the contrary, then hell mend ye.

If you're not prepared to follow the most basic and reasonable of rules, it's probably for the best if you leave. Who knows, perhaps you'll be proved right about a sudden drop in readership. But given that there's been absolutely no sign of that happening so far (in spite of people insisting for months that it must already be happening), it does seem highly improbable.

He's also forgetting about pro-indy Labour, Lib and even Tory MSPs. While the latter will get chucked by Ruth for it, the former two parties now have a 'free vote' policy on independence. Going by polling, that's ~2 in 10 Lab and ~1 in 10 Libs, assuming they represent their electorate reasonably well. Could even be 1 in 10 Tories. In the current Holyrood session, there could be 9 additional pro-indy MSPs hiding. We know some voted Yes; we just don't know who.

I think the free vote policy only applies if an SNP government seeks and is granted a legitimate further referendum. But, at parliament stage, the pro UK parties will vote against it. Anyone defying that will be de-selected (as an SNP politician would be if they were to back the union).

Keep on dreaming? You caution people regularly on here that the SNP could slip if pro indy voters try to be too clever. So you acknowledge yourself that the SNP majority isn't ordained by God. It can vanish and will do so - if not in 2016 then certainly in 2021.

It tells you what would happen if the numbers actually turned out that way. Yes, it's speculation - and based on something not particularly reliable. But if that makes me a dreamer then so is everyone on this blog including yourself on occasion.

I can assure you, Aldo, that my dreamy nature has never extended as far as pumping subsample figures into a seats calculator. Let alone a Westminster subsample into a Scottish Parliament seats calculator.

Nicola Sturgeon has announced that 100 million is to be allocated towards fighting terrorism. So she realises there is a threat however the Nats will not take action to turn the tap of.According to the Assad regime around 4000 Jihadists have crossed into Europe.

Where are you sources of evidence? How do you know what anyone, let alone Nicola Sturgeon, "realises"? How do you know what actions "the Nats" will take or not take? have you got some "insider information" that you may like to share with everyone?You appear to be imputing your interpretation on to a situation and not presenting any evidence to support it.Can I suggest that before you make sweeping statements on any subject that you give some references for evidence to support your argument. Otherwise, it is merely an opinion. While I agree that everyone is entitled to an opinion your comments with lack of supporting evidence makes you appear like an internet troll (Definition of troll: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll)

57-2 against (including every MP from Scotland's governing party), is a sad indictment on the ability of Scottish MPs and the Scottish government to adequately represent their constituents. 44% in favour among the public - same as indy - with fewer actively against. Yet, in the end, the Scottish vote will be 3% in favour and 97% against.

Possibly. They have no shortage of potential allies. British politics has fundamentally shifted - a few years ago the tories seemed doomed under PR. That's no longer the case - they can make it work now.

The speeches by David Davis and Alec Salmond were superb today. Totally exposed the hypocrisy of this whole situation. Not just the Tories or the UK Establishment but how can any of us accept what is going on in these corrupt societies and justify it by bombing only one of the perpetrators? Why are we not closing down their internet and bank accounts? At least the Russians are destroying their supply lines.

Pair of disgusting humans who are happy tae sit on their corus and verse while islamic fascists run amok. I hope the crocodioes get the pair of them next. And what did you do daddy when those people were being raped, murdered, decapitated and put in mass graves? Oh darling I was collecting my 74k and saving up to send you tae private school.

It wis in the papers, wee Nicola disnae give me personal calls. And I do not know what actions they want to take unless they tell us.I do know they have screwed up the polis, fire brigade and education. And it wis hardly a bloody sweeping statement.

What papers? and what sources do they cite? The UK press are notorious for making stories up to suit their owners and editors demands. (read the Levinson enquiry). It comes as no surprise that the First Minister of Scotland does not call you. I am glad that you admit that you do not know what actions others will take, yet you continue making unsupported claims. You state that you "know"(how?) that "they", whoever "they" are, have "screwed up"(whatever that is supposed to mean) the emergency services. Yet again, you present no evidence for your claims. I can only conclude that you are just voicing your opinions again. So by the definition, given in the website link cited in an earlier post, (Definition of troll: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll) you are nothing but a troll spouting nothing but unsupported opinion. Can I suggest that you also check the definition of a sweeping statement as you clearly do not know the definition. Here is a link to help you out:- http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/sweepingAlso the fact that you revert to using archaic swearwords (bloody) demonstrate that you have nothing to offer in the way of constructive debate.I do not think that the unsupported opinions you spout on this forum are likely to have much impact so can I politely suggest that you may wish to state your opinions in some other forum. I for one shall not be reading any more of your comments as you have demonstrated that you are nothing but a troll with nothing useful to say or contribute. Goodbye.

I only wish I were paid to do this Thomas. I am not a part of any conspiracy - and I suspect no one else is either. The internet is still, even after all these years, basically irrelevant. No one is going to pay someone actual money to come on here and wind you up.

Not the public for sure but as I pointed out almost 70% of lib dem members voted against Hameron's Blairite stupidity while it is blatantly obvious Clegg and Lamb are moving against Farron and undermining him.

meh The upshot is if they keep this up then they have a decade or more of irrelevance to look forward to at least.

Probably the most telling part of the whole debate was the tories and odious Blairites clapping like seals and in raptures for Benn's cut and paste Blair impersonation. (which the Sainted Tony might well have had a hand in draughting ;-) )

Obviously, short of jumping on the green benches and hooting and shrieking like monkeys directly at Corbyn, it was the tories and red tory Blairites stunningly unsubtle way of telling the 'terrorist sympathiser' to fuck off and stop bothering them with all this left wing claptrap.

They're in this for the money not some ludicrous outmoded stuff like beliefs or principles and you can tell just how irritated they get when anyone challenges their low IQ sub Daily Mail mindset.

But mostly they were beside themselves with glee because Hameron's second rate Blair impersonation has been utter shit for a long, LONG time and this was more like it! LOL Hilarious and tragic.

Benn's speech was just the usual Blairite misdirection, vapid platitudes and spectacular missing of the point as you would expect, but these fools are so woefully short of an original thought or idea they lapped it up with gusto.

Point is Blair could have easily made that speech but there's a reason he can't any more without almost all of the public thinking LIAR!

When Hameron's stupid party and the odious Blairites work out why that is they might well begin to start worrying about Hammond rather pointedly moving the goalposts to prepare the way for ground troops.

I don't see the point. If we're going to bomb IS we have to go full mental, not just four tornados lobbing a bomb if they think they won't hit a needlework meeting in the same town. It just aggravates things rather than solve it, because it just isn't horrible enough to make people stop. Instead, get China, Russia, US, France and the UK to lob a nuke each on the IS hotspots. Put it on telly. The equivalent of smashing a bottle begbie-style and shouting "Are we having a fukken psycho competition eh? come oN!!!!!". If we don't have the bottle/evil to do that just wall the place off for all time, and give erdogan a slap on the way out, little hitler wannabe that he is.